DOES JESUS CHRIST HAVE TWO WILLS OR ONE? (MONOTHELITISM OR DYOTHELITISM)

Whether God incarnate, Jesus Christ, has two wills or one is pertinent for a better understanding of our Lord Jesus and how His truly human and truly divine natures relate to one another. Before we proceed any further, let us define certain vital terms related to our context:

Person: “Person” is a center of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will.¹

Nature: That which makes humans distinctly human rather than animals.

Will: That which enables a deliberate action.

Monothelitism: Jesus has only one will – a divine will.

Dyothelitism: Jesus has two wills – a human and a divine.

Jesus Christ is a divine person (the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) with both a divine nature and a human nature (the Hypostatic Union). Therefore, the question of wills in Jesus Christ is predicated on whether the will is a function of the “person” or the “nature.”

If the will is a function of the person, then Jesus Christ should have only one will, which is the divine will. If the will is a function of one’s nature, then Jesus Christ should have two wills—one divine and one human—because Jesus has two natures: one divine and one human.

Ligonier.org explains why the church voted in favor of the Dyothelitism view: “Monothelitism was declared a heresy and the reason it was declared a heresy is because the church concluded a will is in extent an essential part of a nature. If Jesus didn't have a human will as well as the divine will, it would be very difficult to see him as truly and fully human. We know he has a divine will because he was the Logos from all eternity and the second person in trinity that has a will. So, we know he has a divine will. If he has only one will it's just the divine will and the church, I think, rightly concluded that that would mean he did not have a fully human nature because he wouldn't have a fully human will.”²

On the contrary, Dr. William Lane Craig holds to Monothelitism. He states, “…the will is properly a faculty of a person rather than of a nature, I believe that there is but one will in Christ, despite his having two natures. For there is one person who is Christ, namely, the divine second person of the Trinity.”³

A common objection posed to the Monothelitism view is: if the will is a function of personhood, then would the Triune God—who is one God in the form of three persons—possess three distinct wills? If so, would these wills contradict each other? If they contradict each other, then they cease to be God, as this situation would limit God’s omniscience.

William Lane Craig states that God’s absolute perfection entails a perfect harmony between their wills, “Now if we affirm a robust conception of a person as a center of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will, as I think we should, it follows that the three Trinitarian persons have three wills. Of course, as the wills of three perfect persons, their wills always agree and are in harmony. Though there are three distinct acts of will, they all will the same thing.”⁴ [Emphasis Mine]

The church affirmed Dyothelitism by considering the following verses from the Bible:

Matthew 26:39 (NIV): “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”  

Luke 22:42 (NIV): “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

John 5:30 (NET): “I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.”

John 6:38 (NET): “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.”

Other passages assume human will in Christ (John 4:34, 5:19. 8:29, 14:31; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 10:9.

To defend his position, Craig argues that if the will is associated with one’s nature then Christ should have two persons – a divine and a human.⁵

This is nothing more than an introduction to this complicated subject where, I believe, theology and philosophy should intersect to provide an adequate understanding of it.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monothelitism-and-the-trinity

²https://www.ligonier.org/posts/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monothelitism-and-the-trinity

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/other-videos/dyothelitism-vs-monothelitism & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIr3o799aFA&ab_channel=ReasonableFaithOrg

Websites last accessed on 5^th August 2024. 

The Incarnation Of God: The Necessity (What Do We Celebrate At Christmas?)

            What do we really celebrate at Christmas?

            We celebrate the incarnation of God, says R.C Sproul:¹

R.C. Sproul reminds us that what we really celebrate at Christmas is the incarnation of God Himself.

What we celebrate at Christmas is not so much the birth of a baby, as important as that is, but what’s so significant about the birth of that particular baby is that in this birth we have the incarnation of God Himself. An incarnation means a coming in the flesh. We know how John begins His gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So in that very complicated introductory statement, he distinguishes between the Word and God, and then in the next breath identifies the two, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And then at the end of the prologue, he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Now in this “infleshment,” if you will, of Christ appearing on this planet, it’s not that God suddenly changes through a metamorphosis into a man, so that the divine nature sort of passes out of existence or comes into a new form of fleshiness. No, the incarnation is not so much a subtraction as it is an addition, where the eternal second person of the Trinity takes upon Himself a human nature and joins His divine nature to that human nature for the purpose of redemption.

            William Lane Craig’s model for understanding the doctrine of Incarnation is valuable:²

I suggested a model for understanding the doctrine of the incarnation that allows us to affirm the deity and humanity of Christ in a logically coherent way that is also biblically faithful. This model involved, as you recall, three planks. First, that we affirm with the Council of Chalcedon that Christ has two complete natures – human and divine. Secondly, that the soul of the human nature – that body/soul composite that was Jesus of Nazareth – was the second person of the Trinity; it was the Logos. In uniting with the flesh, the Logos brought to the flesh everything needed to complete the human nature and to make it a genuine human being. And then, thirdly, I suggested that we think of the divine elements of Jesus’ consciousness as being largely subliminal during the time of his earthly sojourn. Although on occasion it may have surfaced in consciousness in different ways, for the most part we think of Jesus as having an ordinary human consciousness just like any other human being, and that enables us to explain his growth in wisdom and knowledge, his ignorance of certain facts, the ability of Jesus to feel genuine temptation, the anxieties and struggles that he experienced in life, his need for spiritual discipline and reliance upon his heavenly Father, his prayer life, the struggles in Gethsemane, and so forth. It gives us a realistic portrait of Jesus as we read about him in the Gospels, and yet he was also very much aware of who he was and the divine identity that he possessed at the same time.

            The Incarnation was necessary.

            Thomas Aquinas emphasizes that the Incarnation, a consequence to the human fall, was necessary for God to communicate HIMSELF in the highest manner to HIS creation, namely man.:³

Article 1. Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of goodness, it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity. But from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it was most fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not fitting for God to become incarnate…

…On the contrary, It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Romans 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God—"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ."

…To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by "His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three—the Word, a soul and flesh," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.

Article 3. Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin";…Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate…

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

…There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ligonier.org/blog/incarnation-what-we-celebrate-christmas/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-8/

³http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article3

Websites last accessed on 30^th November 2019.

How Could God Be Born? (Birth Of God)

            God, by definition, is uncaused. If God is uncaused, HE cannot be born. How then do we celebrate Christmas as the birth of God – the Lord Jesus Christ?

Was Christ God?

            If Christ is not God, then HIS birth need not be questioned. But every sincere Christian believes that Christ is God.

            How could we be certain of Christ’s deity (that Christ is God)?

            We may not find a verse in the Bible in which Christ acknowledges HIS deity with the simple words, ‘I am God.’ But the Jews of Jesus’ time were well aware that HE claimed to be God, “The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10: 31-33, NET, Emphasis Mine).  There’s another instance of the Jews disputing Christ’s claim to be God, “The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!”” (John 19:7, NET, Emphasis Mine)

            How did Christ claim to be God?

            Although Christ may not have said the simple words, "I am God," HE did make several claims of paramount significance that only God can make:

            (1) Jesus claimed that the angels were HIS angels (Matthew 13:41). Elsewhere angels are spoken of as ‘the angels of God’ (Luke 12: 8-9, 15:10).

            (2) In the same verse (Matthew 13:41), apart from claiming that angels are HIS angels, Jesus referred to the Kingdom as HIS Kingdom.

            (3) Although God alone can forgive sins, Jesus claimed to forgive sins, “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”” (Mark 2:5, RSV; cf. Mark 2: 1-12).

            (4) Jesus spoke of judging the world (Matthew 25: 31-46).

            (5) Jesus claimed to be one with the Father, “…The Father and I are one.” (John 10:30). To know Christ is to know the Father, HE claimed (John 14: 7-9).

            (6) Jesus claimed to be pre-existent, “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”” (John 8:58, NET).

            (7) Jesus clearly acknowledged that HE is Christ, the Son of God, “And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63b-64, NKJV, Emphasis Mine).

            (8) God alone has the power to kill and make alive (1 Samuel 2:6). However, Jesus claims this power to give and preserve life, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” (John 5:21, NET). Elsewhere HE said, “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live…” (John 11:25, RSV).

            We could go on and on, but it is adequately clear from the Bible that Jesus is God.

How Is The Birth of God Justified?

            The New Testament identifies Jesus as both truly God and truly man, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind…Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” (John 1: 1-4, 14-18, NET).

            Jesus is described as God, who created all things. This very Jesus became man and entered earth. Thus says the Bible about the incarnation of God as a man. Therefore, Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man.

            Christ was not God, to begin with, then human being, then God again. The incarnate Lord Jesus Christ was God and man, simultaneously.

            Therefore the birth of God is not an aberration. It is perfectly logical. If Christ were truly man, then HE had to be born on earth as a human being.

Necessity Of Incarnation

            Finally, was it necessary of God to become man to save mankind?

            Yes!

            Why?

            Very minimally, sin separates God and man. Since every human being is a sinner, no man or woman can be with God forever. Therefore, the problem of sin (that separates man from God) had to be resolved.

            This problem can only be resolved by God’s initiative. Man cannot initiate any solution because he is limited/finite. Therefore, the infinite God initiated the salvation of man through the second person of the blessed Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ.

            The consequence/wages of sin is death. Therefore, any program of salvation should include death.¹

            If Christ had to die, then HE had to be born.

Endnotes:

¹Only the sacrifice of the eternal God can save mankind of their sins – those who have died, those who are living and who will die, and those who are yet to be born.